SECULAR EDUCATION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 48, 27 February 1911, Page 3

SECULAR EDUCATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I quite anticipated having to read some such rigmarole as "Liberal" has contrived to turn on to your readers. "Liberal" either fails to see my point, ot, if lie sees it, tries to obscure the issue by specious argumentation. Lot mo skits the case thus: Those who ai'e opposed to war object to paying far defence, though, they cannot, in time of war, defend their country. Catholics object to paying the State for doing for them (educationally) what they cannot do efficiently or effectively for themselves, much less for tihe nation as' a ■whole. Is the analogj not (to that extent) complete? At present Catholics can provide a satisfactory secular education for only one-half their own children ; and this only by what not a few Ca-tholics as well asßrotestants regard as "sweated " labour. Where would they be if the State allowed them to "contract out" educationallj , on condition that they provided their children throughout the whole- Dominion with as sound and effective, a secular education as is provided in our State schools ? Where would they be if they had to pay their teachers a "fair" wage? The fact is, no Church can possibly compete with the State* in organising or supplying education. If Catholics could supply all their own children witih a thoroughly satisfactory secular education, tlhere might ! be something to say for allowing them to J contract out — but, then, every other I religious denomination would bo equally entitled (on the same conditions) to the privilege of contracting out. Catholics, I think, should regard wha,t they pay ! for Protestant education as a kind of j life insurance, and so a good investment ! If Protestanto were ignorant and illite- j rate they would no doubt persecute ! Catholics as of old. lam nofc sure that Protestants could regard State endow- j ment of Cathulic education as a lifeinsurance, since not a few Catholic authorities at least seem to teach tha/t j their Church has a. divine right, if only it had the i mi°;ht. to determine the temporal fate of indiA'iduals and of nations. — I am, etc., HUGH MACKENZIE. 25th February. ONSLOW GAS PROPOSALS. 0.0 THE BDITOK. Sir, — What is the use of Councillor Bowden telling the residents of Ngaio and Khandallah that he did not and never would object to the introduction of gas into their district, when he has done his utmost all through the negotiations to place difficulties in the way, finishing up by voting against the scheme on the score that he ' could not agree to the Gas Company protecting themselves from being called upon to erect a large number of lamps in the dying years of the concession without a minimum period during which these particular lamps should bo lit? Let it be clearly understood that the extended period asked for only applies to thu lamps erected during the last nine years of tho concession, and does not prevent other arrangements being made by the borough at the expiry ot the twenty-one years. Councillor Bowden, although a comparatively young man, prides himself upon his business experience, and in hiswisdom objects to the concession of twenty-one years. I ask you, sir, could any person with a grain of com-mon-sense, far less business experience, expect a gas company to lay mains, etc., at a cost of approximately £10,000 without a reasonable tenure 1 I contend that twenty-one years is not an unreasonable period, and is not a serious matter to the borough, especially when it is taken into consideration that the concession only applies to coal gas. We already have tho electric light, and, further, the agreement with the Gas Company leaves the council at liberty to introduce at any time any gas or illuminant other than coal gas. In addition to this the borough has .the right to purchase at any time the whole of the reticulation (other than any main used for supplying other districts), including public lamps, meters, governors, etc., on the same terms as arranged with the Miramar Borough. The bogoy that Councillor Bowden and other .opposiiij; councillors make so much of is of very little moment ; in fact, by keeping the gas out of the district it would seem as if the councillors opposing the gas proposals v/cic doing then utmost, to preserve a, monopoly for the electric light. Why will they not see, with Councillors Bannister, Stafford, and myself, that the introduction of gas will do a.way with a monopoly and create a healthy competition between gas ond electricity, to the manifest ad\*antage of both public and private consumers. Even if we do not take into consideration the great boon which gas for cooking and heating means, surely wo should not lose sight of this, that if we throw out the gas proposals, in eighteen months, when our present contract for lighting runs out, we will be at the mercy of the Electric Light Departxnenij of the t W«Uwgton City r .Council,

who will then bo in a position to dictate any terms they may thiuk fit. Councillor Bowden knows very well that th© streets to be reticulated have been discussed and agreed to by the council. To argue that because the Gas Company will not undertake to supply every house in a scattered district such as ours is a valid reason for rejecting the proposals is childish in the extreme. Councillors Bannister, Stafford, and myself will bo pleased to attend any public meeting which may be held, and will be glad to discuss the proposals at any time with any ratepayer or resident who may be interested in the eras question.—l am, etc., ALEX. FERGUSON, Another Councillor for Onslow.